Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

Here we go ...

 

https://fcc.web.cern.ch/Pages/news/FCC-publishes-concept-design-for-a-post-LHC-future-circular-collider-at-CERN.aspx

 

The Future Circular Collider, henceforth referred to as Colossus, is currently projected to cost about 24 billion euros (about $27 billion dollars) TO BUILD.  

 

Maybe $38-40 billion to build AND operate.

 

And you know how these things go.  

 

Projects like this almost always cost more than projected.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if the final figure is on the order $50 BILLION or more dollars.

 

All in pursuit of a gnome.

 

WOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who want to learn more about the Electric Universe alternative …


Beginner’s guide (good place to start):


https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/beginners-guide/


Essential guide (particularly useful):


https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/eg-contents/


Common Misconceptions (worth knowing):


https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/misconceptions/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the EU’s explanation for the rotation curves observed in galaxies.

 

 

 

The mainstream insisted that observed rotation curves required dark matter, which as the video notes, they haven’t found despite 85 years and many billions of dollars trying to find.

Here is the PDF of the paper discussed in this video: 


http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF


Read it folks.


Doesn’t this make much more sense than the zoo of gnomes the mainstream has created out of thin air?


When are the public (and other scientists) going to demand an end TO THIS COSTLY MADNESS of the mainstream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Wednesday … time for a new gnome …


https://www.space.com/43091-supermassive-black-hole-formation-early-universe.html

 

Quote

 

Supermassive Black Holes Likely Born in 'Halos' of Dark Matter


The birth story of the universe's first supermassive black holes is getting a rethink. 


Researchers have generally thought that the seeds of these pioneering behemoths sprouted in areas awash in ultraviolet radiation streaming from neighbor galaxies. This radiation inhibited the formation of normal stars, freeing up material for eventual incorporation into black holes, the idea goes.


But a new study suggests that another phenomenon was perhaps more important in suppressing this type of star formation — the rapid growth of "halos" of dark matter, the mysterious stuff that makes up most of the material universe (and is so named because it neither absorbs nor reflects light).


"In this study, we have uncovered a totally new mechanism that sparks the formation of massive black holes in particular dark-matter halos," study lead author John Wise, an associate professor in the Center for Relativistic Astrophysics at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said in a statement.


"Instead of just considering radiation, we need to look at how quickly the halos grow," Wise added. "We don’t need that much physics to understand it — just how the dark matter is distributed and how gravity will affect that. Forming a massive black hole requires being in a rare region with an intense convergence of matter."


You just have to laugh at the statement “We don’t need that much physics to understand it”.   Of course not ... not when you’ve got a ZOO of magical gnomes made out of whole cloth to work with.   No physics needed at all.    In fact, I'm not even sure you folks understand what physics is any more.

 

When is this costly INSANITY going to end?   When the big bang, dark matter, inflation, black hole, magnetic reconnection, etc. gnome believers finally ask for more than the welfare budget to do their *research*?  

 

Mind you, I’m still waiting for that picture of a black hole they promised they would show us …

 

... LAST YEAR.   

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is VERY interesting … https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.03190  .   That mainstream science article says they have identified two IDENTICAL LIGO events separated by FIVE DAYS.     They claim this is just the result of “lensing” by an intervening galaxy … that there was only one binary black hole merger … but could it be an indication of a glitch in their detector/procedure?   


And here’s another interesting report … http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/01/radio-jets-from-the-milky-ways-black-hole-could-be-pointing-right-at-earth .  The jet from the black hole in the core of the Milky Way is apparently pointing right at us.    Astronomer believe the jet emanating from the *black hole* in the core of the Milky Way is “narrow, in fact, that it’s coming at us from just one 300 millionth of a degree — suggesting that it’s aimed almost directly at Earth.”   Now think about the likelihood of that, folks?   The probably of the sun … earth … being in just that special location relatives to the jet from our own galaxy.   The odds of that are … well ... very, very, very small.   So how gullible are you folks?   Is there an ounce of common sense left in the mainstream astrophysics community and those who support it?  Or are we just EXTRA special … gnomishly so it would seem?  😉


And one last item … 


https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-01/fda-ndf012319.php 

 

Quote

New detector fails to confirm would-be evidence of dark matter


Oh rats!!!!!  Not again!!!
   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t remember if I’ve linked this 2104 scientific article before (and too lazy to look back through this long thread) …


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.1263.pdf

 

Quote

Counter-Rotation in Disk Galaxies 

 

The paper is significant because it’s describes something the EU/PC proponents can explain …

 

... where whereas, as the paper states, "counter-rotating galaxies still represent a challenging subject for both [mainstream] theorists and observers”.

 

Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hits just keep on coming …


Michael Mozina who contributes at the Thunderbolts.info forum posted ( http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=53f72aef954affe119107d13b2676985&start=165#p126384 )  a link to this just published article …


https://phys.org/news/2019-01-hubble-deepest-images-deeper.html

 

Quote

 

Making the Hubble's deepest images even deeper

 

It has taken researchers at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias almost three years to produce the deepest image of the universe ever taken from space, by recovering a large quantity of "lost" light around the largest galaxies in the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field survey.


To produce the deepest image of the universe, a group of researchers from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) led by Alejandro S. Borlaff used original images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) taken over a region in the sky called the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF). After improving the process of combining several images, the group was able to recover a large quantity of light from the outer zones of the largest galaxies in the HUDF. Recovering this light emitted by the stars in these outer zones was equivalent to recovering the light from a complete galaxy ("smeared out" over the whole field) and this missing light shows that some galaxies have diameters almost twice as large as previously measured.

 


And then Michael observes that the above is just MORE proof that the mainstream community’s ordinary mass estimates for the universe were TOTALLY botched ... and this would significantly impact the calculations that the mainstream used to claim that missing mass (i.e., dark matter) was needed to reproduce the rotation curves of galaxies in the first place.   But you won’t find the mainstream going back and questioning whether it’s claim that dark matter was needed is valid.   Because the mainstream has become a cult.


In that thread, Michael also makes and proves the case “that EU/PC theory is 100 percent consistent and compatible with the standard model of particle physics, the single most tested and successful model in the history of particle physics.”    Indeed, as he’s pointed out in the thread, the ONLY thing that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) successfully did was confirm the existence of the Higgs boson particle … the one particle that was still missing according to the standard model.  


But the gnome believers have had to posit a different model … the LCDM model … to go along with their dark matter gnome.    So billions of dollars have been spent looking for other hypothetical particles … and strings ... that the LCDM model posits .   All without success.   The LHC did not find ANY of them.  Nor have any other experiments.    So now the excuse is that the LHC just wasn’t big enough.   The mainstream wants to build an even bigger, more expensive collider … not to confirm the standard model (because that is now complete) … but to prove the existence of the dark matter gnome and thus their LCDM model.    But as Michael indicates ...  it is destined to be money wasted … all because the mainstream community can not bring itself to admit that the calculations that led to the initial claim that dark matter is needed were DEEPLY FLAWED because of totally botched mass estimates.


Michael Mozina sums up things in the linked post …

 

Quote

Enough is enough already. It's time to pull off the metaphysical band-aids and embrace empirical physical explanations for astronomical observations. Nothing can save the LCDM model from going down in empirical flames and everyone will get burned by that inevitable process. It's better to cut one's losses sooner rather than later.


He's totally right.    

 

By the way, the entire linked thread (“Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias”) at thunderbolts.info is quite informative, largely thanks to the work of Michael Mozina.  

 

And it demolishes the mainstream’s gnomish theories.

 

So so well reading ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new theory:

https://dailygalaxy.com/2018/12/astonishing-new-theory-dark-matter-dark-energy-are-a-fluid/

Quote

-snip-

“We now think that both dark matter and dark energy can be unified into a fluid which possesses a type of ‘negative gravity’, repelling all other material around them,” says Jamie Farnes from the Oxford University e-Research Center. “The outcome seems rather beautiful: dark energy and dark matter can be unified into a single substance, with both effects being simply explainable as positive mass matter surfing on a sea of negative masses.”

Scientists at the University of Oxford may have solved one of the biggest questions in modern physics, with a new paper unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses ‘negative mass’.c If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you. This astonishing new theory may also prove right a prediction that Einstein made 100 years ago.

-snip-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I’ve talked about Herbig Haro objects in the past on this thread, but every once in a while I like to revisit the subject, and perhaps add some new material.  

 

So look at this beautiful picture of Herbig Haro jet HH24 …


print.jpg
(expand at  http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hvi/uploads/image_file/image_attachment/28158/print.jpg)


This is a double sided jet from a newborn stellar sized object inside the Orion B molecular cloud complex.   The jet is thought to be oriented along the rotational axis of the star.    

 

Notice the helical winding of the jet, especially in the top portion.   It’s quite apparent.


Now, the mainstream doesn’t really understand what creates these jets.    Their current theory is that as giant clouds of cool molecular hydrogen collapse under gravity to form a rotating, flattened disk encircling the newborn star, gas from the disk rains down onto the protostar. Superheated material then spills away and is shot outward from the star in opposite directions along the only uncluttered escape route – the star's rotation axis.  Sometimes they don’t mention helical winding or even magnetic fields, sometimes they do, which leads me to suspect their *science*  isn’t settled.


Look at this image from the Hubble website:


2560x1024_wallpaper.jpg
(expand at  http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hvi/uploads/image_file/image_attachment/20515/2560x1024_wallpaper.jpg)
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_Mountain


NASA named this a pillar of “Gas and Dust” … but in truth it’s mostly plasma.     And in this image, if you look carefully, you can see the jets from a least 2 Herbig Haro objects … one perpendicular to the very top of the cloud (HH901) and another even larger one (HH902) that is (coincidently?) perpendicular to the cloud about halfway down.   This so-called “mountain” is likely filled with electrical activity if the EU/PC community is right.   One does wonder why the two jets are roughly parallel.   Doesn’t that seem an unlikely coincidence, in the mainstream model, and perhaps not so unlikely in a model positing large electric current moving through space causing the creation of stars (and galaxies) in preferential orientations?   Notice the direction of the big sweeping bands of material outside the mountain?   They seem to line up with the jets.


Here are images of  Herbig Haro object HH34, also in the Orion Nebula.


image_3525e-Herbig-Haro-34.jpg
(expand at http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge2/image_3525e-Herbig-Haro-34.jpg)


Protostar_HH-34.jpg
(expand at  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Protostar_HH-34.jpg)


Offset_Jets_around_Protostar_HH-34_in_Or
(expand at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Offset_Jets_around_Protostar_HH-34_in_Orion.jpg)


Again you can see there two jets on opposite sides of the protostar.  The mainstream describes the jet structure as a machine-gun-like blast of "bullets" of dense gas.    "Gas", not plasma, and the imagery the words paint again suggests they believe "explosions" are the cause.  


Note also the “enigmatic waterfall" (their description) to the upper left of the second image.    They says this feature is “still unexplained”.   But if you look closely, you can see helical winding in it, which to me suggests electrical current moving through plasma in the interstellar medium.   Recently, this paper ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/118 ) concluded that the “waterfall” is the bow shock from a jet emanating from a protostar in the L1641 cloud, whose position is indicated here:

 

aj481802f14

(https://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/146/5/118/downloadHRFigure/figure/aj481802f14 )


You can see what they think is the bow shock from the jet in the opposite direction, too.   You can also see what might be bow shocks from two other protostars (HH1 and HH2) in that image.    All very interesting and certainly possible.   Again, notice that the jets seem to have a preferred orientation to one another.   Hmmmmm ...


Here’s an interesting image of HH30’s disk and jet …


HH30.jpg
(expand at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/HH30.jpg)


It reminds me of the Vela Pulsar:


vela_pulsar_jet.jpg
(expand at https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg)


and the Crab Nebula pulsar


sol01_07.jpg
(expand at  http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia/sol01_07.jpg)


EU/PC theorists suggest those are similar to the discharge from focus fusion device (Lerner) or a homopolar motor (Alfven), both of which I’ve discussed previously.  

 

Maybe young protostars are doing the same thing?


Here’s object HH47 ….


opo9524g.jpg

(expand at https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/opo9524g.jpg)


Again, there is clear helical winding in the jet coming from the protostar in the bright dust cloud on the left side of the image.   


NASA says the “wobbling” in the jet might be “possibly caused by the gravitational pull of a companion star.”  

 

But what if it is due to something as simple as the electric current in the jet, instead?


Look at this closeup of HH110 (the bright jet coming from the bottom) …


HH110_Subaru_Ha_Sii.jpg
(expand at http://casa.colorado.edu/~bally/IMAGES/JPG/HH110_Subaru_Ha_Sii.jpg )


HH110 is again helically wound.  

 

It’s a fundamental property that must be explained … and “explosions”, “shock” and “turbulence” just don’t do that.  

 

And I don’t think magnetic fields (more precisely, “field lines”) without a rational cause for them do either.  

 

Just saying … 


Here’s a closeup of HH 45/50:


hh49_spitzer_f.jpg
(expand at https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0602/hh49_spitzer_f.jpg) 

What do you see?  Helical winding … or as the NASA website ( https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060203.html) says … a “cosmic tornado”.  

 

According to them, “the exact cause of the spiraling structures apparent in this case is still mysterious.”  

 

But is it?   As explained here ( http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060210hhtornado.htm ), these jets coming from stellar bodies where completely unexpected by the mainstream community.    The gravitational models in twentieth century astrophysics never “envisioned narrow jets of anything streaming away from stellar bodies.”      


Look at the way NASA explained them ( http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/1995-24 ) -  “Stellar jets are analogous to giant lawn sprinklers. Whether a sprinkler whirls, pulses or oscillates, it offers insights into how its tiny mechanism works. Likewise stellar jets, billions or trillions of miles long offer some clues to what's happening close into the star at scales of only millions of miles, which are below even Hubble's ability to resolve detail”   Lawn Sprinkers?   LOL!   This just shows how clueless the mainstream remains.     


And in that description, the words “plasma” and “electric” don’t occur even once.   Instead, the “material falling onto the star creates a jet when some of it is heated and blasted along a path that follows the star's rotation axis, like an axle through a wheel.”    “Heated and blasted”.    LOL!   Pray tell … what is *nozzle* in this explanation … the lawn sprinkler part?     How does a star create a collimated jet that is trillions of miles of miles long by “heating” material near it?  Hmmmmmmm?   


The NASA link asks “Why are jets so narrow?” Then NASA says “The Hubble pictures increase the mystery as to how jets are confined into a thin beam. The pictures tend to rule out the earlier notion that a disk was needed to form a nozzle for collimating the jets, much like a garden hose nozzle squeezes water to a narrow stream. One theoretical possibility is that magnetic fields in the disk might focus the gas into narrow beams, but there is as yet no direct observational evidence that magnetic fields are important.”   


Notice that last part … “there is no direct evidence that magnetic fields are important.”   They don’t seem to even try to keep the mechanism by which prostars and galaxies supposedly produce helically wound jets that are light years or hundreds of light years long consistent (although I find mainstream sources that do).    Instead, the NASA site suggest the kinks along the path of motion are evidence for a stellar communion that “pulls on the central star, causing it to wobble, which in turn causes the jet to change directions, like shaking a garden hose”. 

 

And by they way,  here’s a 2011 article ( https://phys.org/news/2011-06-x-ray-puzzle-protostellar-jets.html ) that concludes the X-rays detected from these jets is  indeed evidence of strong magnetic fields in protostar jets.   What creates that magnetic field isn’t discussed.   But as I said, there are sources that posit a magnetic field much like that imagined in the accretion disks of black holes powering the jet.


Next they ask “what causes a jet’s beaded structure?”   “Why are they ‘kinky’?”  They suggest “explosions”, “shock” and other sources offer “magnetic fields” as possibilities, but  the truth is that ALL of these phenomena have already been explained by the EU/PC community … because “beading” and “kink instabilities”, along with helical winding, are two of the most easily recognized features of plasma electric discharges.    Such phenomena is regularly seen in the plasma laboratory and is observed in computer simulations of electric current in plasmas.  Unfortunately, the mainstream steadfastly REFUSES to go there … perhaps because they fear that would threaten their precious memes, threaten their reputations, and threaten their careers.   So we remain stuck with dust and gas and wind and sprinklers and turbulence and shock and gnome after gnome after gnome to explain these things.   True understanding isn’t forthcoming from the mainstream community … but maybe it lies here:  

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070330tornado2.htm “A Tornado in Space (2)  Remembering Hannes Alfvén’s Admonition.”   


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since in my last post I reviewed some stellar phenomena that might be best explained by EU/PC theory, let me continue in that vein.  

 

What do mainstream astrophysicists and EU/PC proponents think when they see this out there in space …


Twin-Jet-Nebula.jpg

( http://www.constellation-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Twin-Jet-Nebula.jpg)
M2-9 (Twin Jet Nebula or Wings of a Butterfly Nebula)

 

or this ...

 

heic1316a_n.jpg

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B7uM-J9OJA4/Uii0RoB94MI/AAAAAAAAM3o/j67Mlt9gSRI/s1600/heic1316a_n.jpg)

PN Hb 12


or this …


NGC6302-2012-07-22-HLA-2015.jpg

( http://www.waid-observatory.com/images/ngc/NGC6302-2012-07-22-HLA-2015.jpg)
NGC 6302 (Butterfly Nebula)


or this …


Ant_Nebula.jpg

( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Ant_Nebula.jpg)
Mz 3 (Ant Nebula)

 

or this …


image_3618e-Hen-2-437.jpg

( http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge2/image_3618e-Hen-2-437.jpg)
Hen 2-437


or this …


heic0301a.jpg

( https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic0301a.jpg)
heic0301a  (Boomerang nebula)


or this …


Henize-3-1475.jpg

( http://annesastronomynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Henize-3-1475.jpg)
Henize 3-1475 (Garden-Sprinkler Nebula)

 

or this ...


c7c9bdece81b2d6a2cbe73c128bc4c62.jpg
( https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c7/c9/bd/c7c9bdece81b2d6a2cbe73c128bc4c62.jpg)
MyCn18  (Hourglass Nebula)

 

They are certainly beautiful aren't they?   And they number in the thousands.    

 

The mainstream calls them “bipolar planetary nebula” even though they have nothing to do with planets.  Those are stars where the two halves of the nebula come together.   The mainstream claims they occur when an aging low-mass star reaches the final stages of life, expands to become a red giant, then casts off the outer layers into space, slowly shrinking to form a white dwarf, while the expelled gas is slowly compressed and pushed outwards by stellar winds.  

 

The EU/PC community, on the other hand, sees those images and thinks of a stellar sized plasma filament (or more accurately, a bundle of filaments) carrying current through a region that has a z (or zeta) pinch, which has created a star.  A z-pinch occurs when a current is run through a bundle of plasma filaments.  The particles in the plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.   The plasma will heat and begin to glow.

 

 

z-pinch-1.jpg

 

In the lab, the crushing effect can produce an arc discharge between two or more layers of the structure.   It is a well known property of plasma that it can operate in two visible modes (arc and glow) and one invisible mode (dark).  In objects, like perhaps these stars,  all of these modes are present.   The outer, larger extent of the plasma filaments is very diffuse – the electric current density being insufficient to illuminate it (dark mode).   As the filaments wind together and begin to interact, they begin to glow and in some places arc if a double layer occurs.   Notice the bright ring surrounding the star in MyCn 18?   That's thought to be plasma in arc mode.    Bright rings are very common in these types of nebula when viewed axially.

 

Look closely at the Garden Sprinkler nebula.   Why is it s-shaped?   And why are there obvious interwound twists in the plasma as you move away from the star?   That’s again perplexing to the mainstream, who believe what they see comes from what is essentially a massive explosion.   But the EU/PC community sees a twisting Birkeland current with braided filaments.   


And look at the internal structure within M2-9.  It's problematic for the mainstream but in the laboratory, current-carrying plasmas naturally form cells separated by thin walls of opposite charge called double layers.  Double layers will form along the current axis where positive charge will build up on one side and negative charge on the other side of a “sheath.” And if enough current is applied the sheath glows.  EU/PC proponents ays signs of filaments, a z-pinch, double layers and glowing sheaths are visible in this nebula.

 

(stellar-galactic-formation-1.jpg)

( https://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-content/uploads/stellar-galactic-formation-1.jpg )

 

And how in the world does a star, undergoing massive explosions, produce a bipolar formation anyway?   Again, we encounter something that still puzzles the mainstream … that requires gnomes for them to explain.  One gnome is that ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mz_3#/media/File:Ant_Nebula.jpg) the central star has a closely orbiting companion that exerts strong gravitational tidal forces, which shape the outflowing gas.   But astrophysicists admit that for that idea to work, the orbiting companion star would have to be very, very close … about the distance of the Earth from the Sun.   Another gnome is that, as the dying star spins, its strong frozen-in magnetic fields are wound up into complex shapes.    But in the EU/PC universe, bipolar forms along z-pinched filaments are not difficult to explain at all.   They are a natural result of physics that can be demonstrated in the lab.


The Boomerang nebula is peculiar too.   It is said to be a cold nebula … in one of the coldest places in the universe.   In fact, radio measurements indicate the inner part is only one degree above absolute zero.   Again the mainstream uses gnomes to explain what they see ( https://www.universetoday.com/135920/finally-know-boomerang-nebula-colder-space/).   They claim that collision with a binary companion is what caused the nebula and that rapid expansion of the gas from the “explosion” is the reason it’s so very cold.   They say the only way to eject so much mass and at such extreme speeds is from the gravitational energy of two interacting stars.   Probably not true.   They just never think outside the box they've built around themselves.


Here’s a false color image showing the polarization of the plasmas in the Boomerang Nebula …


133229main_image_feature_405_ys_full-e14

( https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/133229main_image_feature_405_ys_full-e1496788568866.jpg)


The mainstream just sees features it can't quite explain.    The EU/PC community, on the other hand, notes the way the filaments spiral helically into and away from the central star.  They say that’s a sure sign of Birkeland currents.    A sign of electrical activity.    But the mainstream won’t hear of it … won’t even consider this possibility.  Perhaps because it’s not a gnome.   Yet, it's something that can be modeled with physics we observe here on earth.   It’s something that can be created in labs here on earth.


And here is one last factoid ... perhaps the biggest puzzle of all for mainstream astrophysicists regarding bipolar planetary nebula …
   

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1338/

 

Quote

 

Astronomers have used ESO's New Technology Telescope and the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to explore more than 100 planetary nebulae in the central bulge of our galaxy. They have found that butterfly-shaped members of this cosmic family tend to be mysteriously aligned — a surprising result given their different histories and varied properties.


The final stages of life for a star like our Sun result in the star blowing its outer layers out into the surrounding space, forming objects known as planetary nebulae in a wide range of beautiful and striking shapes. One type of such nebulae, known as bipolar planetary nebulae, create ghostly hourglass or butterfly shapes around their parent stars.


All these nebulae formed in different places and have different characteristics. And neither the individual nebulae, nor the stars that formed them, would have interacted with other planetary nebulae. However, a new study by astronomers from the University of Manchester, UK, now shows surprising similarities between some of these nebulae: many of them line up in the sky in the same way [1].


"This really is a surprising find and, if it holds true, a very important one," explains Bryan Rees of the University of Manchester, one of the paper's two authors. "Many of these ghostly butterflies appear to have their long axes aligned along the plane of our galaxy. By using images from both Hubble and the NTT we could get a really good view of these objects, so we could study them in great detail."


The astronomers looked at 130 planetary nebulae in the Milky Way's central bulge. They identified three different types [2], and peered closely at their characteristics and appearance.


"While two of these populations were completely randomly aligned in the sky, as expected, we found that the third — the bipolar nebulae — showed a surprising preference for a particular alignment," says the paper's second author Albert Zijlstra, also of the University of Manchester. "While any alignment at all is a surprise, to have it in the crowded central region of the galaxy is even more unexpected."


Planetary nebulae are thought to be sculpted by the rotation of the star system from which they form. This is dependent on the properties of this system — for example, whether it is a binary [3], or has a number of planets orbiting it, both of which may greatly influence the form of the blown bubble. The shapes of bipolar nebulae are some of the most extreme, and are probably caused by jets blowing mass from the binary system perpendicular to the orbit.


"The alignment we're seeing for these bipolar nebulae indicates something bizarre about star systems within the central bulge," explains Rees. "For them to line up in the way we see, the star systems that formed these nebulae would have to be rotating perpendicular to the interstellar clouds from which they formed, which is very strange."


While the properties of their progenitor stars do shape these nebulae, this new finding hints at another more mysterious factor. Along with these complex stellar characteristics are those of our Milky Way; the whole central bulge rotates around the galactic centre. This bulge may have a greater influence than previously thought over our entire galaxy — via its magnetic fields. The astronomers suggest that the orderly behaviour of the planetary nebulae could have been caused by the presence of strong magnetic fields as the bulge formed.

 


So ... instead of seeing what's obvious to the EU/PC community, the mainstream immediately turns to a gnome … “ancient frozen-in, galaxy wide, magnetic fields”.   :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and by the way, after the mainstream discovered this problem … and tossed out that gnomish explanation … they promptly forgot the discovery … or ignored it.  

 

Since 2013, there have been no papers that I can find trying to explain what they found.    

 

It’s just another problem that they’ve swept under the rug.


Meanwhile, the EU/PC community has an explanation … a good one …

 

 

 

Here's a good article with more details:  

 

https://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-content/uploads/An-Electric-Universe-View-of-Stellar-and-Galactic-Formation.pdf “An Electric Universe View of Stellar and Galactic Formation”

 

And here's another video on this topic … 

 

 

 

You see, folks, the explanation is staring the mainstream in the face ...it’s an electric universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t recall if I mentioned the European Space Agency’s  $800 million dollar Euclid satellite which is now scheduled for launch in 2022.  

 

It’s primary goals are to study Dark Matter and Dark Energy … or the “dark universe”, as Bob Nichol, lead of the Euclid Consortium has said.  

 

Euclid is “a mission devised to provide insight into the nature of dark energy and dark matter by accurate measurement of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.”  

 

Wikipedia states “Euclid will probe the history of the expansion of the universe and the formation of cosmic structures by measuring the redshift of galaxies”.   


But this, of course, ASSUMES, that redshift is solely related to distance … WHICH IT IS NOT.    

 

If you needed more proof than already presented in this thread about that, read this:


http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Active_galaxies_point_to_new_physics_of_cosmic_expansion

 

Quote

 

28 January 2019


Investigating the history of our cosmos with a large sample of distant ‘active’ galaxies observed by ESA’s XMM-Newton, a team of astronomers found there might be more to the early expansion of the Universe than predicted by the standard model of cosmology.


… snip …


Three years ago, Guido and Elisabeta realised that a well-known relation between the ultraviolet and X-ray brightness of quasars could be used to estimate the distance to these sources – something that is notoriously tricky in astronomy – and, ultimately, to probe the expansion history of the Universe.


Astronomical sources whose properties allow us to gauge their distances are referred to as ‘standard candles’.


The most notable class, known as ‘type-Ia’ supernova, consists of the spectacular demise of white dwarf stars after they have over-filled on material from a companion star, generating explosions of predictable brightness that allows astronomers to pinpoint the distance. Observations of these supernovas in the late 1990s revealed the Universe’s accelerated expansion over the last few billion years.


“Using quasars as standard candles has great potential, since we can observe them out to much greater distances from us than type-Ia supernovas, and so use them to probe much earlier epochs in the history of the cosmos,” explains Elisabeta.


With a sizeable sample of quasars at hand, the astronomers have now put their method into practice, and the results are intriguing.


Digging into the XMM-Newton archive, they collected X-ray data for over 7000 quasars, combining them with ultraviolet observations from the ground-based Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They also used a new set of data, specially obtained with XMM-Newton in 2017 to look at very distant quasars, observing them as they were when the Universe was only about two billion years old. Finally, they complemented the data with a small number of even more distant quasars and with some relatively nearby ones, observed with NASA’s Chandra and Swift X-ray observatories, respectively.


…. snip …


After skimming through the data and bringing the sample down to about 1600 quasars, the astronomers were left with the very best observations, leading to robust estimates of the distance to these sources that they could use to investigate the Universe’s expansion.


Investigating_the_expansion_of_the_Unive


“When we combine the quasar sample, which spans almost 12 billion years of cosmic history, with the more local sample of type-Ia supernovas, covering only the past eight billion years or so, we find similar results in the overlapping epochs,” says Elisabeta.


“However, in the earlier phases that we can only probe with quasars, we find a discrepancy between the observed evolution of the Universe and what we would predict based on the standard cosmological model.”


Looking into this previously poorly explored period of cosmic history with the help of quasars, the astronomers have revealed a possible tension in the standard model of cosmology, which might require the addition of extra parameters to reconcile the data with theory.

 


In other words, when they tried to apply the mainstream's expansion/acceleration model to objects that are further away at higher redshifts, it didn't work right.  

 

So they need to come up with a fix.  

 

And where do they go?


“One of the possible solutions would be to invoke an evolving dark energy, with a density that increases as time goes by,” says Guido.


That’s right … ANOTHER gnome!   


Here's the deep, dark secret they are trying to keep away from the public.

 

Photons in the lab have been documented to transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium.  

 

That is the real cause of photon redshift over distance, not expansion.  

 

And since  ALL of mainstream cosmology rests on the assumption that redshift is ONLY a function of distance, ALL of mainstream cosmology is a house of cards.


Everywhere they turn, there is data that shows a huge problem in the use of redshift.

 

For example,


http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/oldest-galaxy-be-discovered-anachronism

 

Quote

 

Oldest Galaxy to be Discovered is an Anachronism


September 22, 2015


Scientists have found the oldest, most distant galaxy yet: EGS8p7 appears to be a mere 600 million years younger than the universe itself. But according to current theories on the history of the universe, this galaxy shouldn’t even exist.


Soon after researchers at Caltech spotted EGS8p7 using the Hubble and Spitzer Telescopes, they set about to determine its approximate age. This is done by examining the amount and spectrum of light radiated by the galaxy and comparing its “redshift” to those of other galaxies. Redshift is a distortion caused by distance akin to the Doppler effect, except it works on light instead of sound. The further away an object is, the redder and dimmer its light appears to the observer. The researchers used a detection device called multi-object spectrometer for infrared exploration (MOSFIRE) to pick up the galaxy’s spectral signature.


EGS8p7 has a redshift of 8.68, which makes it the most distant galaxy yet to be discovered. When we start dealing with exceptionally distant cosmic objects, light emission and age are linked by the speed of light and the time it takes for an object’s image to reach us across space. Based on this combination of data, this ancient galaxy is approximately 13.2 billion years old. It’s so far away that we’re looking at a snapshot of the galaxy from its infancy, as it first formed.


This takes us back to a time in the universe’s first billion years when it was full of clouds of uncharged hydrogen atoms. A few hundred million years later, young galaxies heated up the hydrogen gas and gave it an electric charge. This boiling, ionized hydrogen created a spectral light signal called the Lyman-alpha line, and it is this signal that gave away the existence of EGS8p7.


But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago, the universe’s hydrogen gas had yet to become ionized, and these thick clouds would have absorbed the photons making up EGS8p7’s light signal before they had a chance to travel across the light-years towards us. The researchers should not have picked up the signal at all.


Astrophysicists are still fumbling to explain the galaxy’s spectral presence. The authors of the paper speculate that hydrogen ionization occurred in fits and bursts across the universe. EGS8p7 may have contained extraordinarily bright and powerful stars that released strong enough ultraviolet rays to ionize a bubble of hydrogen gas, allowing the galaxy’s light signature to propagate. Further analysis of the data will reveal whether this theory holds, or if astrophysicists need to rewrite their timeline for the infancy of the universe.

 


But the mainstream just won’t listen.   


They’re too enamored with proving their gnomes.


Because it's their *bread and butter* and they have little mouths to feed and wives to keep happy in nice houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Thursday and I see that the other group of *gravity only* *scientists are making their own new gnome ... space bubbles.


https://phys.org/news/2019-01-dark-alternative-theory.html

 

Quote

 

Dark matter may not actually exist – and our alternative theory can be put to the test


Scientists have been searching for "dark matter" – an unknown and invisible substance thought to make up the vast majority of matter in the universe – for nearly a century. The reason for this persistence is that dark matter is needed to account for the fact that galaxies don't seem to obey the fundamental laws of physics. However, dark matter searches have remained unsuccessful.


But there are other approaches to make sense of why galaxies behave so strangely. Our new study, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, shows that, by tweaking the laws of gravity on the enormous scales of galaxies, we may not actually need dark matter after all.


The Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky discovered in the 1930s that velocities in galaxy clusters were too high to account for how much matter we could see. A similar phenomenon was described by several groups of astronomers, such as Vera Rubin and Kent Ford, when they studied the motion of stars at the far edges of the Andromeda Galaxy.


The velocities of the stars far from its centre were expected to decrease, as they experience less gravitational force. That's because, according to Newton's second law of motion, the gravitational pull on orbiting matter can be equated to a product of its mass and acceleration (which is related to velocity).


However, the measurements showed that there was no such decrease in velocities with distance. That led scientists to believe there must be some invisible matter there to create a stronger gravitational pull and faster stellar motion. In the past decades, countless other probes of gravitating systems at very large length scales indicated the same problem.


1-darkmatterma.jpg


Beyond dark matter


The mystery of what dark matter actually is remains the ultimate challenge of modern fundamental physics. The core question is whether it is indeed a missing mass source, such as a new type of matter, or whether the gravitational law is simply different at gigantic length scales.


While the first option seems very tempting, we haven't actually found any dark matter yet. Also, while gravity laws are well tested within the solar system, one has to be careful extrapolating this to scales which are at least one billion times larger.


One well known attempt to get rid of the need for dark matter is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which suggests that Newton's law of gravity becomes irregular when the gravitational pull is very weak – as is the case in the outer regions of the galaxy. But this theory, although successful in many respects, hasn't passed the same stringent tests as our standard model of cosmology, which includes dark matter.


The main problem is that MOND cannot explain the missing mass problem in galaxies and galaxy clusters at the same time. Another very strong argument against MOND is based on the observation of colliding galaxy clusters, where the stars of each galaxy pass through each other, but the gas clouds stick together and stay behind. A famous example is the Bullet Cluster, which consists of two such colliding clusters. 


Observations suggest that dark matter follows the stars in these events, which have a lower total mass than the gas cloud. MOND cannot explain why that is.


Space bubbles


We set out to tweak the laws of gravity in a different way. Our approach assumed that a phenomenon known as Vainshtein screening is at work. This suggests that each sufficiently dense, compact object in space generates an invisible sphere around it which determines how the laws of physics behave with growing distance. This sphere is a theoretical concept to help us understand the difference between small and big scales, rather than an actual physical membrane.


According to our theory, within this bubble the laws of ordinary Newtonian gravity that we see in our solar system hold for objects interacting with the massive body at the centre. Outside the bubble, the theory suggests that the gravitational pull by the central object can be significantly enhanced – even though there is not more mass present.


The bubble size would be proportional to the mass of the central object. If, for example, in a galaxy this sphere has a radius of a few thousand light years – a typical distance at which signs of dark matter is observed – the corresponding sphere of our sun would have a radius of 50.000 astronomical units (one such unit is the distance between the sun and the Earth). However, the edge of the solar system is only 50 astronomical units away. In other words, there are no objects we could observe that far from the sun to test whether the sun has a different gravitational pull on them than it has on Earth. Only the observation of entire systems very far away allows us to do that.


The surprising effect is that the size of the Newtonian bubble grows with the enclosed mass in a particular way. This means that the law of gravity changes at different length scales in galaxies and clusters of galaxies respectively and therefore it can explain the apparent dark matter in both systems simultaneously. That's not possible with MOND. Furthermore, it is consistent with the observation of the Bullet Cluster. That's because the gas clouds left behind in the collision are not compact enough to generate a sphere around them – meaning that the apparent dark matter is only notable around the more compact stars. MOND doesn't distinguish between stars and gas clouds.


To our big surprise, our theory allowed us to explain the stellar velocities in galaxies a lot better than with Einstein's general relativity, which allows for dark matter to exist. So there may actually be less mysterious dark matter out there than we think – and maybe even none at all.


We plan to further investigate this interesting phenomenon. It could also be responsible for the high variability of galactic motion, for which we gather more and more evidence.


Any massive body warps the space and time around it, according to general relativity. As a result, light rays take an apparent turn around the object rather than travelling in a straight line – an effect dubbed gravitational lensing. An extremely interesting test of our finding would be the observation of precise gravitational light deflection by individual galaxies, which is albeit a difficult measurement. Our theory predicts a stronger light deflection for very compact galaxies so, excitingly, it could one day be falsified or confirmed by such a measurement.

 


It’s so sad … you have to laugh.


Even a group of *alternative* gravity scientists can’t really think outside the box.


Because they all went to the same *gravity only* schools.


So none of them can imagine a universe where electricity is king.


None of them can imagine that redshift doesn’t work as advertized.


And if these folks prevailed against the vogue gravity-only theory, I’d be asking the same questions.   


And they’d be working hard to suppress the EU/PC opposition.


So some things will never change.


But at least they got one thing right ... they’ve been searching for dark matter for nearly a century … with no success.


Think about that, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, teacher said:

I found this one interesting...

 

 

Yes.   I was aware of that.   Thanks for posting it here, even if it doesn't support the EU/PC thesis per se.

 

Note that recently (2018), DARPA funded a project headed by McCullough to develop a quantum inertia engine.

 

Definitely worth watching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

EU/PC

 

Which is instead of initials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, teacher said:

Which is instead of initials?

 

Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/more-bad-news-for-controversial-20-year-old-claim-of-dark-matter-detection/

 

Quote

 

More bad news for controversial 20-year-old claim of dark matter detection


Claimed signal might be due instead to helium leaking into the photomultiplier tubes.


Over 20 years ago, a team running an underground experiment in Italy announced that it had detected evidence of dark matter—a claim the collaboration maintains to this day. But many physicists remain unconvinced that the signals detected were really due to dark matter, and outside experimental results have been mixed.


A new paper in Nature reporting on results of a different, complementary experiment found nothing to support the controversial claim. And a draft paper posted to the online arXiv proposes an alternative hypothesis for what the Italian collaboration might really be seeing in their data. But neither paper is sufficient to put the matter to rest once and for all.

 


But add that to all the other negative results ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/12/is-theoretical-physics-wasting-our-best-living-minds-on-nonsense/#7c930d017566

 

Quote

 

Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?


Ethan Siegel 


The history of physics is filled with great ideas that you've heard of, like the Standard Model, the Big Bang, General Relativity, and so on. But it's also filled with brilliant ideas that you probably haven't heard of, like the Sakata Model, Technicolor theory, the Steady State Model, and Plasma Cosmology. Today, we have theories that are highly fashionable, but without any evidence for them: supersymmetry, grand unification, string theory, and the multiverse.


Because of the way the field is structured, mired in a sycophancy of ideas, careers in theoretical high-energy physics that focus on these topics are often successful. On the other hand, choosing other topics means going it alone. The idea of "beauty" or "naturalness" has been a guiding principle in physics for a long time, and has led us to this point. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder convincingly argues that continuing to adhere to this principle is exactly what's leading us astray.


… snip …


The book is a wild, deep, thought-provoking read that would make any reasonable person in the field who's still capable of introspection doubt themselves. No one likes confronting the possibility of having wasted their lives chasing a phantasm of an idea, but that's what being a theorist is all about. You see a few pieces of an incomplete puzzle and guess what the full picture truly is; most times, you're wrong. Perhaps, in these cases, all our guesses have been wrong. In my favorite exchange, she interviews Steven Weinberg, who draws on his vast experience in physics to explain why naturalness arguments are good guides for theoretical physicists. But he only manages to convince us that they were good ideas for the classes of problems they previously succeeded at solving. There's no guarantee they'll be good guideposts for the current problems; in fact, they demonstrably have not been.

 

If you are a theoretical particle physicist, a string theorist, or a phenomenologist — particularly if you suffer from cognitive dissonance — you will not like this book. If you are a true believer in naturalness as the guiding light of theoretical physics, this book will irritate you tremendously. But if you're someone who isn't afraid to ask that big question of "are we doing it all wrong," the answer might be a big, uncomfortable "yes." Those of us who are intellectually honest physicists have been living with this discomfort for many decades now. In Sabine's book, Lost In Math, this discomfort is now made accessible to the rest of us.

 


May want to read this one …  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a question for all of you …


What is the largest structure in the universe?


Well the answer is 73 quasars.


http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/article00818.html

 

Quote

 

Universe’s Largest Structure Discovered


A multinational team of astronomers led by the University of Central Lancashire has detected a large group of quasars that may be the largest known structure in the Universe.


image_818.jpg

This image shows the Huge-LQG in the constellation Leo, white crosses mark the positions of quasars (Roger G. Clowes et al / Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg / SIMBAD)

 

Quasars are the nuclei of galaxies from the early days of the Universe that undergo brief periods of extremely high brightness that make them visible across huge distances. Astronomers know that quasars tend to group together in clumps of surprisingly large sizes, forming large quasar groups (LQGs).


The newly discovered structure, named the Huge-LQG, is a group of 73 quasars located in the constellation Leo. It is so large that it would take a vehicle traveling at the speed of light some 4 billion years to cross it.


According to the astronomers, the discovery also challenges the Cosmological Principle – the assumption that the Universe, when viewed at a sufficiently large scale, looks the same no matter where you are observing it from.


The modern theory of cosmology is based on the work of Albert Einstein, and depends on the assumption of the Cosmological Principle. The Principle is assumed but has never been demonstrated observationally beyond reasonable doubt.


To give some sense of scale, whole clusters of galaxies can be 2-3 Megaparsecs across, but LQGs can be 200 Megaparsecs or more across. Based on the Cosmological Principle and the modern theory of cosmology, calculations suggest that scientists should not be able to find a structure larger than 370 Megaparsecs.


The Huge-LQG however has a typical dimension of 500 Megaparsecs. But because it is elongated, its longest dimension is 1200 Megaparsecs – some 1600 times larger than the distance from the Milky Way to Andromeda.


“While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG, we can say quite definitely it is the largest structure ever seen in the entire Universe. This is hugely exciting – not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the Universe,” said Dr Roger Clowes of the University of Central Lancashire Jeremiah Horrocks Institute, lead author of the study accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (arXiv.org version).


“Even travelling at the speed of light, it would take 4 billion light years to cross. This is significant not just because of its size but also because it challenges the Cosmological Principle, which has been widely accepted since Einstein. Our team has been looking at similar cases which add further weight to this challenge and we will be continuing to investigate these fascinating phenomena.”

 

 

How does something this large come to be in the ancient universe in the time available, according to the Big Bang model?   Unless, perhaps, quasars aren't as far away as mainstream astrophysicists believe.   Unless, red shift is not the reliable indicator of distance that mainstream astrophysicists believe?   Then, this observations is not problematic.  Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the Cosmological Principle ...

 

http://blog.drwile.com/the-axis-of-evil-in-astrophysics/

 

Quote

 

The “Axis of Evil” in Astrophysics


Planck_enhanced_anomalies.jpg

The European Space Agency’s image illustrating two things that seem to falsify the cosmological principle. (click for credit)

 

A couple of days ago, I had a fun conversation with a student regarding astrophysics. He seemed very well-informed on the subject, so I begin using some physics “slang” to help move the conversation along. The student picked up on most of the references, but then we began discussing the cosmological principle, which is an assumption upon which the Big Bang model (and many other models of the universe) depends. It essentially states:

 

Quote

Viewed on a large enough scale, the properties of the universe are the same no matter where you are


The student was aware that most observations have never supported the cosmological principle, but he brought up the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which he seemed to think supports it. I countered by mentioning the “Axis of Evil,” and he seemed to think I was joking. I was surprised that he didn’t get the reference, so I explained it to him. He was shocked that he hadn’t heard of it before, so he suggested that I write a blog post about it.


To understand the “Axis of Evil,” you first have to understand the CMB. When astrophysicists were working on the Big Bang model of the universe, which essentially says that the universe “exploded” into being from nothing, they realized that such an “explosion” would leave behind a signature: microwaves that appear from everywhere in the universe. The predicted details of these microwaves varied from paper to paper, but regardless of the details, everyone agreed that if the Big Bang happened, there should be a “background” of microwaves found everywhere in the universe. That’s what became known as the CMB.


More than 15 years after the first prediction of the CMB, its existence was confirmed by Dr. Arno Penzias and Dr. Robert Woodrow Wilson, who shared the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics as a result. Since the real test of a scientific theory is whether or not it can make predictions which are later confirmed by the data, the existence of the CMB helped to solidify the Big Bang Theory as the commonly-accepted scientific model of the universe.


While the existence of the CMB (if the “C” really belongs there) is definitely a confirmation of the Big Bang theory, there are also data that seem to contradict the theory. As mentioned above, for example, the cosmological principle is one of the fundamental assumptions used in the theory, but observations have always argued strongly against that principle. The CMB is no exception.


Why does the CMB argue against the cosmological principle? Remember what the principle says. The universe should look the same everywhere, at least when we get to a large enough scale. Well, look at the image at the top of this post, which (ignoring the white curve and circle for a moment) is one way to represent the CMB in the observable universe (obviously a very large scale!). The red areas are parts of the universe in which the CMB is more energetic (on average), and the blue areas are parts of the universe where the CMB is less energetic (on average). If the cosmological principle were correct, the red and blue should be evenly distributed throughout the observable universe. Even the most untrained eye can see that they are not.


In fact, there are at least two aspects of the image that seem to falsify the cosmological principle. First, the circled part of the image is huge, and it represents a part of the universe whose microwaves are ridiculously low in energy. It is generally referred to as the “CMB cold spot.” Worse yet, there is a universal trend in the microwave energy. The parts of the universe that are below the white curve in the image above have, on average, more energetic microwaves, while the parts of the universe above the curve have less energetic microwaves. That curve is called the “Axis of Evil,” and the cosmological principle says that shouldn’t exist.


Now, of course, astrophysicists who are committed to the Big Bang model (or just the cosmological principle) aren’t willing to give up their precious preconceptions just because of some annoying data, so there are several attempts to “explain around” the CMB. Some think it is simply an anomaly related to the statistical analysis that is necessary to produce the image in the first place. Some think that the cold spot is a remnant of where another universe collided with ours. However, the fact remains that if the image above is an accurate representation of cosmic microwaves, the cosmological principle is simply wrong.


There is one other big problem with the “Axis of Evil,” and it makes me doubt that the “C” should be in CMB. It turns out that the axis seems to be aligned with the very plane in which the planets of our solar system orbit the sun. There is absolutely no reason I can fathom that would explain why a universal phenomenon is linked to our solar system. However, I can image several reasons why something that is related to our solar system is linked to it. In other words, the Cosmic Background Radiation may not be cosmic.


Think about it. We are embedded in our solar system. When we see microwaves coming from all parts of the visible universe, they might just be coming from all parts of our solar system, or all parts of our galaxy. The very fact that the Axis of Evil is aligned with our orbit around the sun argues that it is related to our solar system, not the universe as a whole. Of course, if the CMB is not really cosmic, then it has no value as evidence for the Big Bang. Even if the CMB is cosmic, it clearly argues against the cosmological principle.

 

 

Mainstream astrophysics is simply filled with dilemmas like this ^^^^^.   Just saying ...  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...